CSA assesments? is this right? or fair?

daisy_doughnut_2

dorks wrote: »

.....cos - of course - the PWC wouldn't have any of these were it not for the child, so the NRP should pay half !?!? How much of the car tax, insurance, mot and TV license is attributable to the child? Suffice to say, if the child were not there, the PWC would still have all this!

you missed the point i was making if she didnt have a child then your right but she does an in some cases the car is needed for school runs, doctors, dentist, activities such as dance music lesons the nrp may pay half to all costs it incures to send them but its the pwc time petrol an general running of the car that is not shared
the tv licence
how many parents can get away with not watching cartoons?

maybe only a small proportion is for the children but it all adds up




You forgot to include the half they should pay for your clothes, make up, pub money, etc?

the statement doesnt even justify an answer

real1314

Daisy, you're talking utter rot.

He does the school run too, so is she gonna pay for half his car costs? He has the kids too, so is she gonna pay half his elec/water.gas/ etc?

Duh!

As for Kimi, you still haven;t read the OP properly, nor my replies. It's not her getting MORE money I think is wrong. It's her getting so very much more that he will never be able to treat the kids, never be able to take them on holiday, hardly be able to do anything with them.
She'll have 3 times his income after housing costs.

He would actually be financially better off by having no contact, but it hurt him enough to go from 50:50 to 35:65.

daisy_doughnut_2

real its not about half but her having the children for the majority of the week an having to provide all the stuff that seems silly to ask halfs of
and also dont forget out of her whole income 70 pounds of that is because she gets paid more than him

i have a friend who has there daughter over night just like yours he pays arround the same maintenace
he lives in a 1 bed flat as its cheaper an he has a pull out bed
he takes his child to places that are either free or very cheap
his holidays either come from the sun's 9.50 deals or he waits till very last min an gets some good deals he helps out with clothes ect where he can his ex knows he is on a limited budget an she gets more but its because she gets more that she foots most of the bill as thats what maintenence is for
some weeks are hard an he settles for popcorn an a dvd which the child really enjoys its not about money its about time spent together
your friend pays what every other man pays weather the pwc has 1 pound or a million it doesnt matter he is payin towards his children an i bet that if they were still together then what he actually has left now would be more

you asked for opinions an you got them
im sorry i cant say omg thats so unfair that he is paying that much CSA when she has more money but i cant he is paying the right amount for 2 children an if he struggles maybe post on the other boards an find him some good ways of cutting back because to me it sound like he hasnt got a raw deal like some nrp

kelloggs36

When a child is being maintained by way of child support there is no expectation that the parent making the payments should be providing more by way of extras. This should be paid for by the PWC as they get the maintenance. If the NRP feels that they wish to make payments for extras then they would need to assess whether they can afford to do so. It is not expected of them.

Kimitatsu

As for Kimi, you still haven;t read the OP properly, nor my replies. It's not her getting MORE money I think is wrong. It's her getting so very much more that he will never be able to treat the kids, never be able to take them on holiday, hardly be able to do anything with them.
She'll have 3 times his income after housing costs.

But she EARNS more than him! He only has his children 2 days a week so what is to stop him going and get more qualifications to get a better job? That to me would make sense rather than sitting and complaining.

She gets more to look after her children - to buy things such as school shoes, pay for after school clubs, school trips and the like. I appreciate it is frustrating for him to see her getting more money, but its not like she is leaving them with him 5 nights a week whilst she is out living it up. She uses that money for the family.

kelloggs36

I think what the OP is saying is that the PWC gets given benefits by way of child benefit (which is not split), tax credits (which is not pro rata either) and all for just having the children for 2 extra days per week more than him. Her earnings aren't relevant, but the system isn't set up to split tax credits and other child-related benefits when there is shared care in place. If she got 4/7 of the child benefit, and she got 4/7 of the child tax credits and working tax credits and he got the rest (based on his earnings) then that would be fairer.

real1314

That's partly the point kellogs, but also the point is that under CSA rules, her earnings are irrelevant, so why are his earnings relevant?

If he has to pay her for the 4/5 days she has the kids, then why doesn;t she have to pay him for the 2/3 days he has them? and then all costs could be paid on a 3.5/4.5 basis.

That way the would be fully sharing responsibility for THEIR children, which is surely the way it should be in an ideal world? The problem I (and he) have with the current system is that it doesn't give the opportunity to do things this way, it gives the PWC (whether male or female) all the power in the world to push things however they want.

They can agree a mutual agreement, then they can unilaterally dismiss such an agreement and do not have to give any reasons or explanation, they can settle a clean break with capital, and then renege on it, they can continually re-negotiate if any other way gives them more money.

Anyone like to guess which party in a break up is most at risk of suicide?

daisy_doughnut_2

real1314 wrote: »

but also the point is that under CSA rules, her earnings are irrelevant, so why are his earnings relevant?

to base a reasonable contribution of money for the CHILDREN
there are some nrp's that refuse to split the cost of expencive items so they rely on the CSA money then there are those that offer additional help but if you pay CSA you dont have to

i am also guessing that the children go to a child minder an that some of the monies awarded pays for this
if i am wrong then im sorry

if your friend is spliting EVERYTHING that the children require then he needs to stop thats the reason he pays CSA

real1314

So you're saying that the way he should look at it is that (financially) the kids are not his responsibility beyond the maintenance? He should think, well if they haven't got it, it's not my problem? Why should I care?

Like that's going to happen.

Still it's good that he gives money so she can provide them with holidays (er, can they go on their own?), treats (who'll take them bowling or to F&Bs?), new clothes (aw, thanks for the new top) etc. He can provide them with....

ok, so material stuff isn't everything but if the system says that NRPs should use maintenance as absolving them of responsibility, well, the state of the nation shows that it's been a great success.

But, more importantly, if we agree that a high earning NRP should provide more, especially when the PWC has a lower income....


Then why shouldn't a higher earning PWC provide more when the NRP has lower earnings?

The kids shoudl really have an even level of provision across the full week, they should not be in a position where a NRP can provide a higher lifestyle, nor vice-versa.

Oh, and that stuff about "just get a better job". Yes, well that's pretty facile too. He's applying for Chief Exec of BP tomorrow.

daisy_doughnut_2

real1314 wrote: »

So you're saying that the way he should look at it is that (financially) the kids are not his responsibility beyond the maintenance? He should think, well if they haven't got it, it's not my problem? Why should I care?
some NRP'S do have that attitude!!
but it would be nice if seperated parents had an understanding so as they could negociate on the expencive stuff although most dont
but as stated previously the money is for whats NEEDED

Like that's going to happen.

Still it's good that he gives money so she can provide them with holidays (er, can they go on their own?), treats (who'll take them bowling or to F&Bs?), new clothes (aw, thanks for the new top) etc. He can provide them with....

thats the kind of remark you see from some one who holds some resentment
but just out of interest what does he go 50/50 on?
an on what days does he have the children?
weekends?


ok, so material stuff isn't everything no its not but if the system says that NRPs should use maintenance as absolving them of responsibility, well, the state of the nation shows that it's been a great success.

But, more importantly, if we agree that a high earning NRP should provide more, especially when the PWC has a lower income....

the NRP pays the same % of there wage if they earn more they pay more, quiet simple


Then why shouldn't a higher earning PWC provide more when the NRP has lower earnings?

because regardless off earnings you still have to pay towards your childrens up keep

The kids shoudl really have an even level of provision across the full week, they should not be in a position where a NRP can provide a higher lifestyle, nor vice-versa.

so if the NRP or the PWC earns a much higher wage an has a better job they should be penalised by paying a higher % of there wage than the average joe to the CSA?

Oh, and that stuff about "just get a better job". Yes, well that's pretty facile too. He's applying for Chief Exec of BP tomorrow.

No need for such sarcasm yes its hard to find well paid work but not impossable

one last thing you seem to be blaming people for missing your point but you are not seeing it from other angles so who has the closed mind now
put your self in the position of a parent with care